Local Cache in Private Park?

May 28, 2015

Yeah, you could ask Lowes or Walmart for permission to hide a cache, but they'll likely tell you to ask permission of the parking lot owner, a lessor who probably doesn't even live in your state.

So then don't place the cache. It's pretty simple.

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there. I don't plan to create a lamp post cache any time soon, but if I do, I'll be sure to do it with the owner's permission.

Chris

7.4k · May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

7.4k · May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

This is incorrect. It is the CO's responsibility to ensure that proper permission was obtained. When CO's submit a cache for publication, they agree that they have done so. In the absence of information to the contrary, the reviewer has no basis for assuming that a cache owner has lied in the submission. It is not reasonable to expect reviewers to chase down every CO and every landowner to ensure that permission was obtained. It's the CO's responsibility. If permission wasn't obtained, the CO has submitted the cache for publication under false pretenses.

May 28, 2015

This is incorrect. It is the CO's responsibility to ensure that proper permission was obtained. When CO's submit a cache for publication, they agree that they have done so. In the absence of information to the contrary, the reviewer has no basis for assuming that a cache owner has lied in the submission. It is not reasonable to expect reviewers to chase down every CO and every landowner to ensure that permission was obtained. It's the CO's responsibility. If permission wasn't obtained, the CO has submitted the cache for publication under false pretenses.

We agree that these are good rules. I agree that in an ideal world, that's the way it should happen. Additionally, it removes legal liability from geocaching.com. It removes liability also from reviewers as agents of geocaching.com. All blame is placed squarely on the CO.

But to stretch the analogy, most CO's are driving at 65MPH, even 80MPH, rather than the posted 55MPH. If someone were to stop all the rule breakers, so many people would no longer be having fun that geocaching.com would suffer economically, and the game in general would suffer. It's not the way we want it. It's not ideal. I merely state that this is the way it is. It's gridlock, with everyone speeding cheek-by-jowl, and if I slow down, I'll cause the accident that messes up the whole highway. This is not equivalent to drones spying on average citizens or spies tapping into your cell phone or WiFi. Other than poison ivy and scrapes from falls in remote areas, nobody is getting hurt.

You're telling me that as a noob, I can pull out my cache-cop badge and NA at least a third of the caches I've seen so far. I'm saying that in the real world, I'm too new to the game to even pretend that I have the right to tell other people what to do. Like it or not, people interpret guidelines with differing degrees of leniency. I would much rather be friendly with CO's because I don't want them to hate me. If I think that way, probably a lot of other people feel that way.

So the problem still ends up being about policy enforcement. Since CO's basically police themselves, we share the lowest common denominator regarding guidelines: interpretation. I have no suggestions on how to fix this. Do you?

Chris

Edited May 28, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

7.4k · May 28, 2015

This is incorrect. It is the CO's responsibility to ensure that proper permission was obtained. When CO's submit a cache for publication, they agree that they have done so. In the absence of information to the contrary, the reviewer has no basis for assuming that a cache owner has lied in the submission. It is not reasonable to expect reviewers to chase down every CO and every landowner to ensure that permission was obtained. It's the CO's responsibility. If permission wasn't obtained, the CO has submitted the cache for publication under false pretenses.

We agree that these are good rules. I agree that in an ideal world, that's the way it should happen. Additionally, it removes legal liability from geocaching.com. It removes liability also from revieweres as agents of geocaching.com. All blame is placed squarely on the CO.

But to stretch the analogy, most CO's are driving at 65MPH, even 80MPH, rather than the posted 55MPH. If someone were to stop all the rule breakers, so many people would no longer be having fun that geocaching.com would suffer economically, and the game in general would suffer. It's not the way we want it. It's not ideal. I merely state that this is the way it is. It's gridlock, with everyone speeding cheek-by-jowl, and if I slow down, I'll cause the accident that messes up the whole highway. This is not equivalent to drones spying on average citizens or spies tapping into your cell phone or wifi. Other than poison ivy and scrapes from falls in remote areas, nobody is getting hurt.

You're telling me that as a noob, I can pull out my cache-cop badge and NA at least a third of the caches I've seen so far. I'm saying that in the real world, I'm too new to the game to even pretend that I have the right to tell other people what to do. Like it or not, people interpret guidelines with differing degrees of leniency. I would much rather be friendly with CO's because I don't want them to hate me. If I think that way, probably a lot of other people feel that way.

So the problem still ends up being about policy enforcement. Since CO's basically police themselves, we share the lowest common denominator regarding guidelines: interpretation. I have no suggestions on how to fix this. Do you?

Chris

I'm telling you that it is incorrect to blame reviewers when people lie.

May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

The problem is simple. Enough of ingnoring land rights and geocahing will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

Austin

7.5k · May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

The problem is simple. Enough of ignoring land rights and geocaching will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

Austin

I understand what LOW is saying. It's a difficult social situation. To have a friendly honest interaction with a cache owner and then to post an NA on the cache would feel hostile. Going to the reviewer would also feel hostile since the cache owner will know who reported him. Is there an easier, friendlier way of dealing with something like this?

May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

The problem is simple. Enough of ignoring land rights and geocaching will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

Austin

I understand what LOW is saying. It's a difficult social situation. To have a friendly honest interaction with a cache owner and then to post an NA on the cache would feel hostile. Going to the reviewer would also feel hostile since the cache owner will know who reported him. Is there an easier, friendlier way of dealing with something like this?

If a thief is nice to me he is still a thief, and I will still have him arrested.

If it were me, I would post the NA and post his email as part of the NA, but then sometimes I'm a mean old jackass.

Maybe explaining to the CO that just because there hasn't been a problem yet does not mean there will not be a problem in the future. Even for those who choose to obey the "No Trespassing" sign, they had to take the time to travel to this location to discover that they can't cache here, and so the CO is giving himself a bad name with them. It's the CO that is the problem, and he is not being friendly even if he speaks nicely.

Austin

7.4k · May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

The problem is simple. Enough of ignoring land rights and geocaching will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

Austin

I understand what LOW is saying. It's a difficult social situation. To have a friendly honest interaction with a cache owner and then to post an NA on the cache would feel hostile. Going to the reviewer would also feel hostile since the cache owner will know who reported him. Is there an easier, friendlier way of dealing with something like this?

I don't think anyone should report a cache as NA if they are truly uncomfortable doing so. If you have good reason to think there is a problem, you can go to the reviewer privately. A lot of areas have local clubs or groups that can be a good place to hash out specific issues.

I think parking lot caches get by because it is rare for anyone to notice or care, so there's no glaring reason for anyone to think that permission wasn't granted. If you are confronted by an angry storekeeper at a parking lot cache? Hit NA and let the reviewer deal with it.

"Needs Archived" doesn't mean the cache will be archived. The reviewer will look into it, that's all.

2.6k · May 28, 2015

I see this thread starting to spin in a different direction.

For this specific cache - we now know that this is in a private park, without permission, and with signs telling non-residents they are not welcome. Clearly not a good place for a cache. Though I probably would do the same as the OP if I was in his/her position, as new to the game and not wanting to make waves.

The "other direction" is discussion on permission in principle. Correct that it is the cache owners responsibility, we all tick a box that we comply to the listing guidelines which includes:

You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.

What percentage of caches have such permission, and what if anything could be done about increasing it, seems a topic for another thread. E.g. Groundspeak could require explicit, documented permission for every cache.

In this specific case, yes the cache owner lied when he ticked the box. In other cases, permission can be a bit more gray.

4.6k · May 28, 2015

What percentage of caches have such permission, and what if anything could be done about increasing it, seems a topic for another thread. E.g. Groundspeak could require explicit, documented permission for every cache.

Caches that are in areas controlled by "natuur en bos" and other authorities (sort of rangers) in Belgium all have written permission. There has been a problem in the past and all caches in such areas got a reviewers note asking to provide proof that permission was granted + contact info of the person who gave permission. CO's that didn't comply had their caches "temporary disabled" and later archived. Reviewers have maps showing the nature reserves and know when to ask CO's if they have their paperwork in order. CO's work closely with the rangers when placing caches and as far as I can see this is working very well. BTW, buried WPs and containers are approved by the rangers too no matter what GS guidelines are so no need to fear that this will lead to problems

May 28, 2015

Maybe a permission box to be filled out by the CO might be a better idea on future hides. Something that asks who gave permission for the hide or if no permission is obtained why the cache owner feels they have the ability to place a cache there. Maybe these must be filled out or the cache can't be submitted for review.

I have only a few hides, four of which are on the property of local businesses. For those hides I have spoken with and obtained permission from the business owners. Unfortunately, I cannot write that I received property from the owner of business A or the manager of business B on the hide page, as that might be considered to be a commercial endorsement, so I just have to go with a generic "permission for the hide was give by the owner/manager of the nearby business.

7.4k · May 28, 2015

Maybe a permission box to be filled out by the CO might be a better idea on future hides. Something that asks who gave permission for the hide or if no permission is obtained why the cache owner feels they have the ability to place a cache there. Maybe these must be filled out or the cache can't be submitted for review.

I have only a few hides, four of which are on the property of local businesses. For those hides I have spoken with and obtained permission from the business owners. Unfortunately, I cannot write that I received property from the owner of business A or the manager of business B on the hide page, as that might be considered to be a commercial endorsement, so I just have to go with a generic "permission for the hide was give by the owner/manager of the nearby business.

Earthcache submissions require (or at least used to require) the contact information for the person granting permission, or a brief comment about why explicit permission wasn't needed (i.e. "Park has open policy for geocaching"). I have long felt that this simple step would deter a considerable proportion of the caches placed without permission. Reviewers don't necessarily need to check the reference at the time of publication, but if an issue arises there is some documentation beyond the checkbox.

19k · May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

The problem is simple. Enough of ignoring land rights and geocaching will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

Austin

I understand what LOW is saying. It's a difficult social situation. To have a friendly honest interaction with a cache owner and then to post an NA on the cache would feel hostile. Going to the reviewer would also feel hostile since the cache owner will know who reported him. Is there an easier, friendlier way of dealing with something like this?

Go to the Home Owner's Association?

:lol:

One thing that has not yet been brought up here is the idea of implicit permission. Not every cache requires explicit permission. Some areas don't want to be bothered by people asking to hide caches, and there is a history of caches being hidden there with no issues. But a sign stating "No Trespassing, No Boating, No... etc." would pretty much rule out implied permission.

May 28, 2015

I'm telling you that it is incorrect to blame reviewers when people lie.

Exactly. Of course they are not to blame. That's a large part of what 'not liable' means.

Then the purpose of the reviewer is mostly not enforcement, even though if necessary they can archive an irregular cache. Since the reviewer doesn't actually visit the site, all the reviewer can really do is suggest things like "Don't place that cache in a bull pen." or "Putting a cache in a national park is illegal." They catch the big dumb mistakes we all might make. They're really more like coaches than enforcers, and only for those who chose to play by the rules. For those who don't play by the rules -- a lot of CO's -- reviewers are just a hurdle on the way to fun. (Again, I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying that's what I see in the real world.)

If most of CO's don't follow all the rules, then the review system itself is unrealistic, even if geocaching.com and reviewers are not liable.

If a thief is nice to me he is still a thief, and I will still have him arrested.

If it were me, I would post the NA and post his email as part of the NA, but then sometimes I'm a mean old jackass.

Maybe explaining to the CO that just because there hasn't been a problem yet does not mean there will not be a problem in the future. Even for those who choose to obey the "No Trespassing" sign, they had to take the time to travel to this location to discover that they can't cache here, and so the CO is giving himself a bad name with them. It's the CO that is the problem, and he is not being friendly even if he speaks nicely.

Austin

So you're equating the majority (60%?) of geocaching.com's CO's with thieves. I don't think I would go that far. I think the speeding analogy is more appropriate. Tell me you never ever speed, eh?

Maybe a permission box to be filled out by the CO might be a better idea on future hides. Something that asks who gave permission for the hide or if no permission is obtained why the cache owner feels they have the ability to place a cache there. Maybe these must be filled out or the cache can't be submitted for review.

I have only a few hides, four of which are on the property of local businesses. For those hides I have spoken with and obtained permission from the business owners. Unfortunately, I cannot write that I received property from the owner of business A or the manager of business B on the hide page, as that might be considered to be a commercial endorsement, so I just have to go with a generic "permission for the hide was give by the owner/manager of the nearby business.

See below.

Earthcache submissions require (or at least used to require) the contact information for the person granting permission, or a brief comment about why explicit permission wasn't needed (i.e. "Park has open policy for geocaching"). I have long felt that this simple step would deter a considerable proportion of the caches placed without permission. Reviewers don't necessarily need to check the reference at the time of publication, but if an issue arises there is some documentation beyond the checkbox.

This might be more feasible. It would certainly reduce the number of lamp post caches. It would also mean another real-world hurdle. If geocaching.com had some generic downloadable pdf form, it might be useful as a permit template. Delaware State Parks's permit method is a great example. A pdf could be printed, signed, and either scanned (best option) or photographed for the reviewer. For park systems with a 'laissez-faire' policy, a link could be added to that policy from their website or from a copy of direct park correspondence. However this means more time and paperwork, and reduces the fun quotient. For caches in private parks, the permit could be made available for download so that when geocachers are caught trespassing, they actually have a permit in hand, and maybe even a number to call.

Chris

7.4k · May 28, 2015

3.1k · May 28, 2015

So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems.

I'm just a noob, and as others have pointed out, I must live with my neighbors. Also as others have pointed out, what is seen in the real world is not a truly iron-clad adherence to geocaching.com rules. I will not be reporting the cache. However, there are plenty of other caches out there for me to explore. Should I decide to go out there again, if I were accosted by a LEO, I could simply say I'm the guest of a member and give the officer his name and number.

I esspecially appreciate so many disparate-yet-civil viewpoints. This is an awesome thread. Thanks!

Chris

Woah, woah, woah. Let's just stop at the bolded...

That's absolutely NO excuse to let a cache stick around. In fact, this has simply proven that proper permission was not granted for the hide. Unfortunately, this needs a NA, and an email to the Reviewer with a cut-and-paste of what the CO said to you about "not expressly asked for permission...fearing they would not understand..."

Being neighborly sometimes means telling them to pick up their dog poo off your lawn, or asking the kids to get off your lawn. You don't have to be friends with everyone, but all of us cachers need to follow the guidelines and be the best stewards of the game as we can be. If it sullies a "friendship", that's too bad--all you're doing is holding caches to the standard we all say we will when we "check the boxes" upon publication of our caches, and when we sign up for an account here at Geocaching.com

Then, to the bold and underlined:

What makes anyone think that anyone else will have this information to provide to a LEO when they arrive on scene? You, Chris, are the lone person with that info--I don't have it! So, if I show up and get handcuffed for tresspass after old Jane Doe sees something suspicious out her window one day, what help is that?

This cache needs to be archived, and a lesson will be learned by the cache owner about permissions and "why" we do what we do with the guidelines and following them...

Edited May 28, 2015 by NeverSummer

3.1k · May 28, 2015

So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems.

I would suggest he needs to either get permission or archive the cache. They will certainly understand this: He is inviting non-members to trespass.

Austin

Austin,
I entirely agree with you. However, as I said earlier, I'm a noob. For me to come in and start acting like Mister-Know-It-All-Rent-A-Cache-Cop will only estrange me from other geocachers that I would prefer to befriend.

This game is like a microcosm of real life. For example, there are times when everyone speeds on I-85 between 316 and Spaghetti Junction in Atlanta, even when signs expressly say 55MPH. People often find themselves traveling at 80MPH. If you don't speed along with all the other traffic, you're likely to become an accident victim as others attempt to drive around you. Every time that stretch of I-85 is blocked by a major accident, the city's economy loses millions of dollars in revenue. For local LEO's to stop everyone every time they speed, it would actually cause a huge economic loss to the city. So they make sure people are at least safe. And they do it well.

Life isn't always about following rules, but adapting to how the rules are bent right now.

Chris

Let go of the "cache cop" idea. We are ALL cache cops, and are called to action within the guidelines and the community input we provide cache owners and in turn Reviewers/Groundspeak while they can't inspect every single hide that gets published.

The game worked well when it was community policed, and now there's more and more of the "don't rock the boat" or "don't be a cache cop" attitude out there. Sadly, this only muddies the waters when it comes to enforcing the guidelines and helping to have hides which do not cause problems with individual land owners, public land managers, etc.

This isn't a case of "bending the rules", it's a case where a cache was hidden in a private place without permissions--that's against the guidelines, and the cache owner may have misled the Reviewer by saying that they had permission. Yet, they've now admitted that they don't.

Simply put, with this information, the Reviewer would not have even published the cache in the first place...

May 28, 2015

If a thief is nice to me he is still a thief, and I will still have him arrested.

If it were me, I would post the NA and post his email as part of the NA, but then sometimes I'm a mean old jackass.

Maybe explaining to the CO that just because there hasn't been a problem yet does not mean there will not be a problem in the future. Even for those who choose to obey the "No Trespassing" sign, they had to take the time to travel to this location to discover that they can't cache here, and so the CO is giving himself a bad name with them. It's the CO that is the problem, and he is not being friendly even if he speaks nicely.

Austin

So you're equating the majority (60%?) of geocaching.com's CO's with thieves. I don't think I would go that far. I think the speeding analogy is more appropriate. Tell me you never ever speed, eh?

Where do you get the 60% number? I have found exactly one cache out of 500+ (let me do the math for you: that comes to 0.19%, which is a lot less than 60%) where I was confronted with a No Trespassing sign. The cache had been activated for three whole hours. When I went to log it on line (and yes, I would have posted a NA), the cahce was already disabled and within another 24 hours was archived by the original CO after input by the reviewer.

I posted a NA on a cache where you had to get past a fence onto private property where the CO could not possible have gotten permission. The cache was archived, bringing the total to 0.39%, still a lot less than 60%. There have been 3-4 others that I posted NA, but that was because of significant cache problems, not because of permission problems.

The CO's I have met have all cared about the game and about the reputation of geocahcing. They work to help local parks boards understand caching and how it encourages people to see, use, and experience their parks. They help with creating and writing intelligent geocaching policies, and they organize or participate in CITO events. Compared to them, I will admit I am a freeloader. But for you to continue to accuse 60% of them with not getting permission is getting more than a little bit rude.

Austin

3.1k · May 28, 2015

I suspect there would be about fifty percent fewer caches out there.

And the game would be better for it. Whether it's a private community or a lamppost, permission issues make the entire game look bad.

I agree. Even kids roll their eyes when they realize it's just another lamp post cache. But about whether or not caches have permission, the problem of publishing lies somewhere between the CO and the reviewer. Maybe more of the blame should be put on reviewers. If reviewers are lax, CO's are going to be lax.

The problem is simple. Enough of ignoring land rights and geocaching will be illegal. Game over. It has already happened in several communities in the US. You would not be a cache cop, you would be protecting the game for everyone.

Austin

I understand what LOW is saying. It's a difficult social situation. To have a friendly honest interaction with a cache owner and then to post an NA on the cache would feel hostile. Going to the reviewer would also feel hostile since the cache owner will know who reported him. Is there an easier, friendlier way of dealing with something like this?

If a NA were posted, or an email to the Reviewer ended in a Disabled cache or Archived cache, I'd hope the Reviewer has the tact and ability to inform the CO why the cache is archived, and not let the conversation end there. A good Reviewer will be able to help lay out the reasons the cache is not allowed, and the owner can take it or leave it.

I'd hope they'd take it, but some people are going to feel entitled to "bend the rules". And to the detriment of the game, they continue to do so. That still doesn't render that CO "right", and certainly isn't the community member we all want to have around these here parts, am I right? :unsure:

May 29, 2015

Austin,

Most people in this area probably don't get permission to hide caches in local strip-mall business parking lots, small local parks, brick retainer walls, public land, etc. I seriously doubt most people drop by the city/county land manager's office to find out how/where to get permission. It's an opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I apologize if I seem rude.

NeverSummer

There is a rule/guideline that you shouldn't put a cache on private property where it is posted, "no trespassing". When I'm ready to hide a cache, I'm likely to go one step further and make sure I have a written statement from the right authority.

There is no rule that says I am required to immediately report even mild offenders. If geocaching.com were to make that an unbreakable rule, the guidelines would be equivalent to dictatorship. I'd probably find a different hobby. At some point, when one offender or another fully offends my guideline sensibilities, and I'll report them. Until then, I'll keep my tongue civil with my local CO's and learn the ropes until I've established some credibility amongst the local geocaching community.

Edited May 29, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

3.6k · May 29, 2015

I was not too certain about finding a cache at a local park with a sign that said:

This area is restricted for use of <blah blah> homeowners association members only. No trespassing. No swimming. No fishing. No boating.

I couldn't find the cache, as GZ was in the middle of a bramble I wasn't willing to go through. While it was beautiful, I've never seen so much goose poop in all my life.

Nothing says "Geocachers allowed." I didn't exactly feel like it was appropriate to be there. There are a lot of caches that aren't exactly geokosher in the area, but a "no trespassing" sign was one hurdle I felt was too high. Should this cache be flagged for archive?

Cheers,

Chris

P.S.: Hey, I just coined "geokosher"!

Perhaps the owner, who may or may not live there, has permission?

Anyway, what does it matter? If you feel uncomfortable, unsafe, whatever, then don't look for the cache. There's 2 million+ caches, so there's always more to find.

Whether or not the OP feels comfortable or not doesn't change the fact that it should be archived if the cache was placed on private property (and that there are no tresspassing signs) without permission. Ignoring a cache that violates the guidelines because one doesn't feel comfortable finding it just means that the cache is still there and could potentially cause problems for others.

+1

3.6k · May 29, 2015

Easiest way is hold back the NA and contact the reviewer. Have the him/her deal with the cache owner. I know all 3.5 of mine and I would send a photo of the sign so they know what they are dealing with. Some will ask the CO for a contact number to verify.

I have run into a lot of COs who claim permission when they really didn't.

3k · May 29, 2015

We live in an age where lots of people seem inclined to do whatever they want and if the rules or laws or guidelines disagree then those are to be circumvented or outright ignored. You see it geocaching, you see it driving on the highway, you see it everywhere. I think it's pretty sad because those folks aren't saying "the rules are wrong so I'm going to do the morally right thing"; they are saying "how dare anyone or anything tell me I can't do what I want!"

May 29, 2015

Most people in this area probably don't get permission to hide caches in local strip-mall business parking lots, small local parks, brick retainer walls, public land, etc. I seriously doubt most people drop by the city/county land manager's office to find out how/where to get permission. It's an opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I apologize if I seem rude.

How do you kow that? While I suspect you are correct about lamp post hides, I know that 100% of the hundred or so county park caches in my county follow the guidelines, and in cities that have guidelines, nearly 100% comply. Eventually, the others are archived.

But:

There is a rule/guideline that you shouldn't put a cache on private property where it is posted, "no trespassing". When I'm ready to hide a cache, I'm likely to go one step further and make sure I have a written statement from the right authority.

There is no rule that says I am required to immediately report even mild offenders. If geocaching.com were to make that an unbreakable rule, the guidelines would be equivalent to dictatorship. I'd probably find a different hobby. At some point, when one offender or another fully offends my guideline sensibilities, and I'll report them. Until then, I'll keep my tongue civil with my local CO's and learn the ropes until I've established some credibility amongst the local geocaching community.

This demonstrates that you have made a decision. Now every post you make is an attempt to justify that decision. Perhaps you should think about why.

Austin

May 29, 2015

There is no rule that says I am required to immediately report even mild offenders. If geocaching.com were to make that an unbreakable rule, the guidelines would be equivalent to dictatorship. I'd probably find a different hobby. At some point, when one offender or another fully offends my guideline sensibilities, and I'll report them. Until then, I'll keep my tongue civil with my local CO's and learn the ropes until I've established some credibility amongst the local geocaching community.

Geocaching 101

What should I do if I discover that a cache has gone missing?

If you visit a cache location and the cache is missing, make sure to log the cache with a "Didn't find it" log so that the cache owner is notified. Cache owners who repeatedly receive "Didn't find it" logs should check to see that their cache has not been removed.

As a geocacher, if you notice that a cache page has an unusual number of "Didn't find it" logs, please let the local reviewer know or contact us. We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area.

(emphasis added)

The more geocachers ignore the rules, the more land owners/managers will ban caches because they don't want a bunch of unruly thugs on their property.

The actions of the one, outweigh the actions of the many.

3.7k · May 29, 2015

So I've emailed the CO. He responded and said that he lives within a 500 yards of the cache. He said that so long as I'm respectful of other people's property, I'll be fine. He's a member of the HOA, though he has not expressly asked permission, fearing they would not understand. The cache has been there for years, and cache logs suggest others have visited it without problems.

I'm just a noob, and as others have pointed out, I must live with my neighbors. Also as others have pointed out, what is seen in the real world is not a truly iron-clad adherence to geocaching.com rules. I will not be reporting the cache. However, there are plenty of other caches out there for me to explore. Should I decide to go out there again, if I were accosted by a LEO, I could simply say I'm the guest of a member and give the officer his name and number.

I esspecially appreciate so many disparate-yet-civil viewpoints. This is an awesome thread. Thanks!

Chris

Woah, woah, woah. Let's just stop at the bolded...

That's absolutely NO excuse to let a cache stick around. In fact, this has simply proven that proper permission was not granted for the hide. Unfortunately, this needs a NA, and an email to the Reviewer with a cut-and-paste of what the CO said to you about "not expressly asked for permission...fearing they would not understand..."

Being neighborly sometimes means telling them to pick up their dog poo off your lawn, or asking the kids to get off your lawn. You don't have to be friends with everyone, but all of us cachers need to follow the guidelines and be the best stewards of the game as we can be. If it sullies a "friendship", that's too bad--all you're doing is holding caches to the standard we all say we will when we "check the boxes" upon publication of our caches, and when we sign up for an account here at Geocaching.com

Then, to the bold and underlined:

What makes anyone think that anyone else will have this information to provide to a LEO when they arrive on scene? You, Chris, are the lone person with that info--I don't have it! So, if I show up and get handcuffed for tresspass after old Jane Doe sees something suspicious out her window one day, what help is that?

This cache needs to be archived, and a lesson will be learned by the cache owner about permissions and "why" we do what we do with the guidelines and following them...

Not only that...the CO is encouraging someone to lie to a law enforcement officer. Great way to represent the geocaching community... :rolleyes:

May 29, 2015

[snip]

How do you kow that? While I suspect you are correct about lamp post hides, I know that 100% of the hundred or so county park caches in my county follow the guidelines, and in cities that have guidelines, nearly 100% comply. Eventually, the others are archived.

But:

[snip]

This demonstrates that you have made a decision. Now every post you make is an attempt to justify that decision. Perhaps you should think about why.

Austin

Most caches in my area seem to be park-n-grabs. Perhaps that has skewed my perspective.

As to attempting to justify decisions, erm... Is someone frying live kittens? I don't think so. How often have you looked your neighbor in the eye and made citizen's arrest for speeding, littering, loitering, skateboarding, etc.? What stops any of your neighbors from making a citizen's arrest every time you speed? My inaction is fear-based. Most inaction is. (Sometimes inaction comes from ennui.) I'm not justifying it. I'm saying, "Here we are. That's how it is. And... I'm not the only one."

We can all be armchair referees from a laptop. It's easier to say "NA" from half a continent away over the internet. It's not so easy when you're the one twisting the sword in someone else's gut, eye-to-eye.

Should that specific cache be archived? Probably. But it's been there for a very long time. Someone reviewed it. Lots of other geocachers have found it. Why have none of the many prior to me posted an "NA" on it? Am I so high and mighty that I should gainsay so many others' propriety?

The rules, like most rules, are flawed and subject to variable interpretation. You have not convinced me well-enough that I, with less than a month of geocaching under my belt, should have the temerity to be a local geoNapoleon.

Chris

Edited May 29, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

3.7k · May 29, 2015

Should that specific cache be archived? Probably. But it's been there for a very long time. Someone reviewed it. Lots of other geocachers have found it. Why have none of the many prior to me posted an "NA" on it? Am I so high and mighty that I should gainsay so many others' propriety?

The rules, like most rules, are flawed and subject to variable interpretation. You have not convinced me well-enough that I, with less than a month of geocaching under my belt, should have the temerity to be a local geoNapoleon.

Chris

But you may the one of the few that have actually given it any thought at all...which is both good and bad. Good that you are thinking about these things, bad that so many others couldn't seem to care less...or care more about getting the +1. It doesn't make you "high and mighty"...it makes you a person who takes the guidelines to heart, the legal issues seriously.

May 29, 2015

Not only that...the CO is encouraging someone to lie to a law enforcement officer. Great way to represent the geocaching community...

This is a valid argument. I'm a step closer to considering asking the CO to archive his own cache. I think I know part of the reason why other geocachers have not NA'd the cache yet. There is more than one entrance to the park. Only the main entrance has a "No Trespassing" sign. The suggested entry route waypoint is one of the entrances without a sign.

You've given me something to think about.

Thank you, J Grouchy.

Edited May 29, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

3.7k · May 29, 2015

Not only that...the CO is encouraging someone to lie to a law enforcement officer. Great way to represent the geocaching community...

This is a valid argument. I'm a step closer to considering asking the CO to archive his own cache. I think I know part of the reason why other geocachers have not NA'd the cache yet. There is more than one entrance to the park. Only the main entrance has a "No Trespassing" sign. The suggested entry route waypoint is one of the entrances without a sign.

You've given me something to think about.

Thank you, J Grouchy.

I admit to not reading every word of this thread...was that mentioned previously? Is there reason beyond signage for folks to know this is private HOA property? I can certainly understand why folks may not question this cache's placement if they are being directed to an entry point that doesn't make its ownership obvious.

May 29, 2015

I admit to not reading every word of this thread...was that mentioned previously? Is there reason beyond signage for folks to know this is private HOA property? I can certainly understand why folks may not question this cache's placement if they are being directed to an entry point that doesn't make its ownership obvious.

I had not mentioned it previously. I didn't even think about it until just after reading your post. I didn't know for sure there were other entrances. I just now looked up the cache again and found there was a suggested parking spot. The coordinates are nowhere near the main park entrance. Memory can be fiddly, but I don't remember seeing a "No Trespassing" sign at that parking coordinates anywhere else on site, though I do remember seeing a candidate path into the park. Like I said, I've got some thinking to do.

Chris

2.4k · May 29, 2015

What's the GC code of this cache?

Another cacher might post that NA so you don't have to worry about it anymore.

May 29, 2015

What's the GC code of this cache?

Another cacher might post that NA so you don't have to worry about it anymore.

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that. First, I'm already involved. Second, allowing someone else to report it comes across as more cowardly than the inaction of consideration.

Mind, this is only one of a few nicely-created caches (popular or otherwise) that I've seen that blatantly break rules. This particular broken rule seems the most bendy. That's why I brought it up here.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but it might be interesting if geocaching.com paid some actual feet on the ground to determine viable statistics on which rules are being broken, severity of rule breach, and whether it's a regional thing. It would have to be done without making it into a witch hunt. It would be interesting to correlate the popularity of a cache with its rule bendiness. It might make good research for how to make better rules.

Edited May 29, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

7.5k · May 29, 2015

What's the GC code of this cache?

Another cacher might post that NA so you don't have to worry about it anymore.

Sorry, I'm not comfortable with that. First, I'm already involved. Second, allowing someone else to report it comes across as more cowardly than the inaction of consideration.

Mind, this is only one of a few nicely-created caches (popular or otherwise) that I've seen that blatantly break rules. This particular broken rule seems the most bendy. That's why I brought it up here.

I'm not trying to be cynical, but it might be interesting if geocaching.com paid some actual feet on the ground to determine viable statistics on which rules are being broken, severity of rule breach, and whether it's a regional thing. It would have to be done without making it into a witch hunt. It would be interesting to correlate the popularity of a cache with its rule bendiness. It might make good research for how to make better rules.

In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.

13.7k · May 29, 2015

In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.

Mine too. Cup hooks mostly.

If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do.

One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment.

The reporter and cacher both thought it clever...

19k · May 29, 2015

I admit to not reading every word of this thread...was that mentioned previously? Is there reason beyond signage for folks to know this is private HOA property? I can certainly understand why folks may not question this cache's placement if they are being directed to an entry point that doesn't make its ownership obvious.

I had not mentioned it previously. I didn't even think about it until just after reading your post. I didn't know for sure there were other entrances. I just now looked up the cache again and found there was a suggested parking spot. The coordinates are nowhere near the main park entrance. Memory can be fiddly, but I don't remember seeing a "No Trespassing" sign at that parking coordinates anywhere else on site, though I do remember seeing a candidate path into the park. Like I said, I've got some thinking to do.

Chris

As a bit of an aside, I want to commend you on how you are handling yourself in this thread. This thread could have been a trainwreck by now, if you hadn't handled yourself as you have.

19k · May 29, 2015

In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.

Mine too. Cup hooks mostly.

If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do.

One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment.

The reporter and cacher both thought it clever...

Another aside... many believe (and I agree) that a zip tie will do more damage than a cup hook. The zip tie will strangle the branch after a year or two.

Edited May 29, 2015 by knowschad

3.1k · May 29, 2015

Austin,

Most people in this area probably don't get permission to hide caches in local strip-mall business parking lots, small local parks, brick retainer walls, public land, etc. I seriously doubt most people drop by the city/county land manager's office to find out how/where to get permission. It's an opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I apologize if I seem rude.

NeverSummer

There is a rule/guideline that you shouldn't put a cache on private property where it is posted, "no trespassing". When I'm ready to hide a cache, I'm likely to go one step further and make sure I have a written statement from the right authority.

There is no rule that says I am required to immediately report even mild offenders. If geocaching.com were to make that an unbreakable rule, the guidelines would be equivalent to dictatorship. I'd probably find a different hobby. At some point, when one offender or another fully offends my guideline sensibilities, and I'll report them. Until then, I'll keep my tongue civil with my local CO's and learn the ropes until I've established some credibility amongst the local geocaching community.

Wow.

So, this is an example to the rest of us of where the game could head... Not caring; just give me the find.

LaughingOnWater, I suggest you take a moment to consider that you're entering a game that has been around for a long time. There are guidelines to help people learn, but there are norms of gameplay that take time and care to engage in the greater construct of the game.

I'm not sure how you can even have "guideline sensibilities" when you're as new as you are to the game. It takes a LONG time to understand the nuance of the game. And, to boot, it takes great care to be a good steward of the game.

I'm not pulling my statement from my rear; rather, I'm taking from 14 years of experience, 10 years of being a member, and my time working very closely with a public land management system. I'll tell you how you "gain credibility amongst the local geocaching community": report this cache, and stick to the guidelines. You have documentation that the owner does not have permission for a hide in a private park. That is against the guidelines on a few levels, let alone your compassion or hope to "fit in".

A big issue here isn't just permissions required, it's the "what are you doing here?" that one might get from the police or rent-a-cop or whoever. I don't think risking arrest or creating an enemy of the game (HOA, local LEO, hired rent-a-cops, residents of the association, etc.) on the game is worth a cache in a private park without explicit permissions granted.

Quoth the "Hiding a Geocache" webpage:

"Did you seek permission from the land owner or manager? If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache. If you place it on public lands, contact the land manager to find out about any rules or restrictions."

While not a requirement to report a cache, it is a requirement that owners get permissions. If we, as geocache seekers, find a cache that is not in compliance with the guidelines, we are encouraged to report that geocache:

"If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it."

You quoted the "No Tresspassing " part well ("1. All local laws and documented land management policies apply.

This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access."), but you missed #2:

"2. You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.
By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

In the case of public property, permission can often be obtained from the agency or association that manages the land. Worldwide, there are many such agencies and organizations that regulate geocaching on their managed land. As the cache owner you are responsible for determining who to contact to obtain permission. As community volunteer reviewers become aware of geocache placement policies for a certain location, they may add it to the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki.

Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on particular public property, ensure that you have followed any and all requirements established by the land owner or land management agency before placing the cache. There may be locations in which cache hides are inappropriate, even though not prohibited by local laws.

If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived."

Simply stating on the page that "I have permission" might pass muster on preliminary publication--where a Reviewer does not have direct view of the site or context of the hide in full and honest description--but we users are encouraged to participate in the game by using the provided log types; this includes Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived.

In this case, you've done due diligence by asking in the forums if it is ok, contacting the owner, and finding that they do not in fact have permission to place the cache in a private park. This is where you continue the process by reporting the cache via NA. It's not personal. If the cache owner takes it personally, then that's too bad. They really need to follow the guidelines and not fib about permissions on private property, or managed public lands either.

Edited May 29, 2015 by NeverSummer

May 29, 2015

In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.

Mine too. Cup hooks mostly.

If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do.

One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment.

The reporter and cacher both thought it clever...

I've actually seen hooks too. That's less of a concern to me than "no trespassing" signs.

If you replace hooks with zip ties, for all intents and purposes, you've essentially adopted that cache's tree. As the tree grows, the zip ties will have to be replaced on the limbs where they're attached so the bark's cambium layer isn't choked to death. Many arboreta and botanical gardens use plant labels attached with two screws so the label is visible at average eye level on the tree's trunk. The screws needs to be unscrewed a little each year to keep the label and its screws from being engulfed by the growth of the cambium layer. Arboreta usually have a management plan for this kind of thing. Contrary to what you might think, screws are not as injurious as fence wire or nylon rope when left securely-tied-yet-unmanaged on a tree.

Chris

3.1k · May 29, 2015

In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.

Mine too. Cup hooks mostly.

If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do.

One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment.

The reporter and cacher both thought it clever...

I've actually seen hooks too. That's less of a concern to me than "no trespassing" signs.

If you replace hooks with zip ties, for all intents and purposes, you've essentially adopted that cache's tree. As the tree grows, the zip ties will have to be replaced on the limbs where they're attached so the bark's cambium layer isn't choked to death. Many arboreta and botanical gardens use plant labels attached with two screws so the label is visible at average eye level on the tree's trunk. The screws needs to be unscrewed a little each year to keep the label and its screws from being engulfed by the growth of the cambium layer. Arboreta usually have a management plan for this kind of thing. Contrary to what you might think, screws are not as injurious as fence wire or nylon rope when left securely-tied-yet-unmanaged on a tree.

Chris

And yet, we can't count on users to have a management plan, or to be knowledgeable arborists or foresters.

So, this is why perception of damage to trees is a trump card to any "sound science" that might exist. It's best to keep the face of the game in ship shape by not allowing caches which might be perceived to damage, harm, or cause alarm.

May 29, 2015

Wow.

So, this is an example to the rest of us of where the game could head... Not caring; just give me the find.

Maybe it's not time yet to wave our arms around like the proverbial Nac Mac Feegle shouting "Crivens!" and "Whaley, whaley, whaley."

LaughingOnWater, I suggest you take a moment to consider that you're entering a game that has been around for a long time. There are guidelines to help people learn, but there are norms of gameplay that take time and care to engage in the greater construct of the game.

Are we shooting the messenger? I'm just saying what I see. I'm not saying I like what I see.

I'm not sure how you can even have "guideline sensibilities" when you're as new as you are to the game. It takes a LONG time to understand the nuance of the game. And, to boot, it takes great care to be a good steward of the game.

I'm not pulling my statement from my rear; rather, I'm taking from 14 years of experience, 10 years of being a member, and my time working very closely with a public land management system. I'll tell you how you "gain credibility amongst the local geocaching community": report this cache, and stick to the guidelines. You have documentation that the owner does not have permission for a hide in a private park. That is against the guidelines on a few levels, let alone your compassion or hope to "fit in".

Haven't I already agreed with all of this? I'm a total noob. That doesn't make me an idiot. I don't have any hides. I'm not ready for that. I'm asking about this because I don't particularly care to see "No Trespassing" signs. I don't like seeing hooks in trees. And I don't like buried caches. That doesn't mean I'm going to ride out like Torquemada and pretend I've any right to dispense justice from on-high. Please stop confusing me with someone who doesn't care. I do.

I'm confused because I'm expected to both at once understand your position, and at the same time am told I don't have the experience to understand your position. I'm capable of parsing English, analyzing rules and understanding multiple levels of implications that may follow from those rules. Allow me some intelligence, and I'll honorably acknowledge yours.

A big issue here isn't just permissions required, it's the "what are you doing here?" that one might get from the police or rent-a-cop or whoever. I don't think risking arrest or creating an enemy of the game (HOA, local LEO, hired rent-a-cops, residents of the association, etc.) on the game is worth a cache in a private park without explicit permissions granted.

The only person liable or at fault right now is the CO. He's been at fault for years. One or two more days or weeks probably isn't going to make a difference. If problems arise, the onus is on him, not me. I'm not required to run into a "burning building" to "save lives" if I don't have the training. And that's why I'm here--to learn proper precautions and procedures before I jump into that "burning building". I won't be a "martyr" for a hobby. I apologize if this goes against your grain, but there it is.

Quoth the "Hiding a Geocache" webpage:
"Did you seek permission from the land owner or manager? If you place a cache on private land, you must ask permission before hiding your cache. If you place it on public lands, contact the land manager to find out about any rules or restrictions."

While not a requirement to report a cache, it is a requirement that owners get permissions. If we, as geocache seekers, find a cache that is not in compliance with the guidelines, we are encouraged to report that geocache:

"If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it."

I prefer thinking of guidelines more like a constitution rather than a holy scripture. Scripture tends to be non-amendable and above reproach. Constitutions can be amended. And these are human-wrought, unfunded, amendable guidelines for a game--not life-style mandates from an an all-powerful being.

You quoted the "No Tresspassing " part well ("1. All local laws and documented land management policies apply.
This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access."), but you missed #2:

"2. You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property.
By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. If you have permission to place a cache on private property, indicate this on the cache listing for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache.

In the case of public property, permission can often be obtained from the agency or association that manages the land. Worldwide, there are many such agencies and organizations that regulate geocaching on their managed land. As the cache owner you are responsible for determining who to contact to obtain permission. As community volunteer reviewers become aware of geocache placement policies for a certain location, they may add it to the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki.

Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on particular public property, ensure that you have followed any and all requirements established by the land owner or land management agency before placing the cache. There may be locations in which cache hides are inappropriate, even though not prohibited by local laws.

If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived."

Simply stating on the page that "I have permission" might pass muster on preliminary publication--where a Reviewer does not have direct view of the site or context of the hide in full and honest description--but we users are encouraged to participate in the game by using the provided log types; this includes Needs Maintenance and Needs Archived.

In this case, you've done due diligence by asking in the forums if it is ok, contacting the owner, and finding that they do not in fact have permission to place the cache in a private park. This is where you continue the process by reporting the cache via NA. It's not personal. If the cache owner takes it personally, then that's too bad. They really need to follow the guidelines and not fib about permissions on private property, or managed public lands either.

I'm still mulling it over. I'm encouraged but not required by the rules to report the cache or confront the CO. As I stated before, if those were the rules, I'd find another hobby. I'll contact the CO when I feel I'm fully prepared. I have a mind, and I'll use it, thank you.

And yet, we can't count on users to have a management plan, or to be knowledgeable arborists or foresters.

So, this is why perception of damage to trees is a trump card to any "sound science" that might exist. It's best to keep the face of the game in ship shape by not allowing caches which might be perceived to damage, harm, or cause alarm.

From your phrasing, I'm unsure whether you personally believe CO's are incapable of honorable cache stewardship or if you are scoffing that others might believe CO's are incapable of honorable cache stewardship. It could be interpreted either way. I'm not sure I understood your statements that followed. I hope my response is sensible: It is sound science that screw hooks do less damage to trees than wires that can girdle and strangle a tree to death. Apparently it is not a rule that zip-strips around branches should be disallowed, yet zip-strips are clearly superior at killing trees over screws. Human-wrought rules and science don't always align. Sometimes it's better when they do.

I would say "No Trespassing" signs trump hooks in trees with regards to human safety. That's why out of the guideline infractions I've see so far, I brought up trespass rather than hooks in this thread's originating post.

And that's what this thread is all about. I've only been geocaching for a short time, yet I've seen a lot of infractions. Reporting all of them is both time-consuming and enemy-making. As I've alluded to metaphorically previously in this thread, I'm trying to get a balanced sense of whether the whole interstate is moving at 80MPH and I should move along with it, or if I should slow down to fifty-five, rat out the infractors, possibly causing an "accident" (bad press for example) and ruin the local "economy" (the game of geocaching) for everyone in the city. But also as previously stated, nobody is frying live kittens, so I'll take my time to make a reasoned decision and then follow through.

Chris

May 29, 2015

As a bit of an aside, I want to commend you on how you are handling yourself in this thread. This thread could have been a trainwreck by now, if you hadn't handled yourself as you have.

Thank you!

3.1k · May 30, 2015

And yet, we can't count on users to have a management plan, or to be knowledgeable arborists or foresters.

So, this is why perception of damage to trees is a trump card to any "sound science" that might exist. It's best to keep the face of the game in ship shape by not allowing caches which might be perceived to damage, harm, or cause alarm.

From your phrasing, I'm unsure whether you personally believe CO's are incapable of honorable cache stewardship or if you are scoffing that others might believe CO's are incapable of honorable cache stewardship. It could be interpreted either way. I'm not sure I understood your statements that followed. I hope my response is sensible: It is sound science that screw hooks do less damage to trees than wires that can girdle and strangle a tree to death. Apparently it is not a rule that zip-strips around branches should be disallowed, yet zip-strips are clearly superior at killing trees over screws. Human-wrought rules and science don't always align. Sometimes it's better when they do.

I would say "No Trespassing" signs trump hooks in trees with regards to human safety. That's why out of the guideline infractions I've see so far, I brought up trespass rather than hooks in this thread's originating post.

And that's what this thread is all about. I've only been geocaching for a short time, yet I've seen a lot of infractions. Reporting all of them is both time-consuming and enemy-making. As I've alluded to metaphorically previously in this thread, I'm trying to get a balanced sense of whether the whole interstate is moving at 80MPH and I should move along with it, or if I should slow down to fifty-five, rat out the infractors, possibly causing an "accident" (bad press for example) and ruin the local "economy" (the game of geocaching) for everyone in the city. But also as previously stated, nobody is frying live kittens, so I'll take my time to make a reasoned decision and then follow through.

Chris

I won't address the hyperbole, but I will address this quote.

I believe it best to leave trees alone for the same reason we don't "bury geocaches".

Working for the US Fish and Wildlife Service, I was recently at a training with peers from around the nation. When the management discussion came up about geocaching, you know what the first response was from folks in the room? "We don't allow people to bury treasure on our lands, and we don't let them leave things behind without a permit." That was 25% of the room who knew anything more about geocaching other than it is a GPS-based game people play. The other 75% were completely unaware of how the game is played, let alone how it affects management decisions in regard to protecting resources.

So you know what those 75% of people had latched onto at the end of the discussion? That "we don't allow geocaches because people want to bury them on our lands".

I had to spend time discussing with people how the game works--from the guidelines on down to how caches are Reviewed, and how they can get in touch with Groundspeak to voice concerns or report unauthorized caches on their land, etc. It took a long time to get that all out in front of them, but most still think it's easier to avoid all of the bad examples by simply banning them altogether.

You see, this is more to my point about perception. Perception is a big part of this game, and even if there is sound science behind the idea that screws are less invasive to long term tree growth than rope or zip ties, it doesn't matter. If people see things attached to trees, they might think it ok to drill into a tree, insert long screws or lag bolts, cut branches to make hidden nanos, or who knows what else. And other geocachers might just use rope or zip ties, but won't think down the road like an arborist or forester might when it comes to adjusting the rope or attaching new zip ties the next spring; most caches are placed and the "zip ties" or "screws" are never adjusted in the 10-15 years the caches have been in place.

So...you get land managers who might see this as troublesome. If it happens in "open" public lands, what's stopping someone from trying it on "closed" or restricted public lands? So, a ban happens, or other restrictions to placement of geocaches.

The same goes for a cache placed in a private park without permission. Even if you're new, you're going to have to crack some eggs to make that omelette, Chris. Meaning, you shouldn't be so scared of a DNF, NM, or NA log. If you think a cache is against the guidelines, say something. If you don't who will? In the case you've provided, it seems like this is just the problem. I sleuthed a bit and found what I think might be the cache you're referring to--and some people have noted the park and the "it's odd to hunt in someone's yard". Well, that gut feeling is what we're talking about here--and you've had it too. You asked here, you talked to the cache owner, and you just need the nudge to log a NA without worry that you're burning bridges because you're a "n00b".

Just because you haven't hidden a cache doesn't mean you can't report a cache which appears to break the guidelines. If you go in, guns blazing, to get the cache shut down you might (you will) burn bridges. But if you approach the situation with humility and with backing from the guidelines, there's nothing that you can do about how the cache owner responds; their response is all on them at that point. And then, so be it. If they want to get miffed, that's fine. But the fact is their cache is against the guidelines, and they've admitted to you that they didn't have permission in the first place, even though they told the Reviewer they did (via cache page, and clicking "the box" upon submission for review).

If you provide the GC number, someone will report it for you--then you really don't have to worry about burning bridges. :anibad: But seriously, if you're still "mulling it over", I'd email the Reviewer in the area and let them handle it. It's like your speeding analogy, sort of--if you see someone doing something they shouldn't, you should call the authorities if you aren't equipped to respond yourself. You've identified a cache which breaks the guidelines, and the advice you've received is to post a NA or email the Reviewer to let them handle it. If you're not equipped to report it with a NA, then let the Reviewer know and they'll handle it. It's your responsibility to help keep this game on the up and up, and you've already got the keen attention to the guidelines, and you claim the intelligence to make a decision. I think we'd all urge you to make the right one, and log NA or email the Reviewer. That's how the game works!

Edited May 30, 2015 by NeverSummer

13.7k · May 30, 2015

In my area the biggest rule that is repeatedly broken and when broken gets many favorite points, is screwing things into trees.

Mine too. Cup hooks mostly.

If on a branch, I'll often replace with a zip tie rather than an NA anymore, after my 2/3rds got harassed over what I do.

One, with a 3/8" hole actually drilled through a live branch was featured in our local news channel, during an "outdoors" segment.

The reporter and cacher both thought it clever...

Another aside... many believe (and I agree) that a zip tie will do more damage than a cup hook. The zip tie will strangle the branch after a year or two.

I guess if you were tightening it as tight as possible to begin with, maybe.

We have a large rural mailbox cache up in an old oak, held in with a treestand base (minus the teeth)and a ratchet strap, that we adjust every year during maintenance to prevent girdling.

We only do it yearly 'cause the tree's not ours.

My other 2/3rd's tree stand in an oak hasn't needed to be adjusted (so far) in five years, yet the one in a white pine, needs it yearly.

3.1k · May 30, 2015

As a bit of an aside, I want to commend you on how you are handling yourself in this thread. This thread could have been a trainwreck by now, if you hadn't handled yourself as you have.

Thank you!

And I'm sorry that I'm coming on so strong. I just have a very hard time with the "I don't want to make waves" or the "I don't want to be a cache cop" excuses when it comes to holding our peers accountable for the guidelines and outward perceptions of how we play "our game".

Please forgive me for getting offensive or defensive to the point of you tuning out altogether. But I can't stress enough that it is up to all of us--newbies included--to help keep this game running as best as possible. Groundspeak isn't designed to police the game beyond their guidelines. Reviewers are spread thin and don't have the same on-the-ground resources like you and I have in our neighborhoods (or public land management jurisdiction) to know when a cache isn't in line with the guidelines. We're the eyes on the ground, and we each have the opportunity to help the game continue to be played without making waves outside of our geocaching community, where it really matters if we want to still have spaces to play this game years from now.

When I was new I was emailing other cachers in the area and the Reviewers all the time to learn more or to get a grasp of the guidelines. I placed caches, which helped me learn even more when I would get a denial of publication from a Reviewer--then work through how to get it published in line with the guidelines. It was a learning experience, but I wasn't afraid to ask questions or to report a cache which broke guidelines--especially private property or other trespass issues; those were a slam-dunk when it comes to why the cache should be disabled or archived.

May 30, 2015

...I had to spend time discussing with people how the game works--from the guidelines on down to how caches are Reviewed, and how they can get in touch with Groundspeak to voice concerns or report unauthorized caches on their land, etc. It took a long time to get that all out in front of them, but most still think it's easier to avoid all of the bad examples by simply banning them altogether.

You see, this is more to my point about perception. Perception is a big part of this game, and even if there is sound science behind the idea that screws are less invasive to long term tree growth than rope or zip ties, it doesn't matter. If people see things attached to trees, they might think it ok to drill into a tree, insert long screws or lag bolts, cut branches to make hidden nanos, or who knows what else. And other geocachers might just use rope or zip ties, but won't think down the road like an arborist or forester might when it comes to adjusting the rope or attaching new zip ties the next spring; most caches are placed and the "zip ties" or "screws" are never adjusted in the 10-15 years the caches have been in place. ...

NeverSummer,

After assessing facts, methods and opinions on this thread, it's time for me to take action. This weekend, I'll contact the CO and ask him to either temporarily disable the cache until he's gotten permission from the HOA and made provision in the cache details online about how to download a printable permit allowing geocachers on that land or simply archive the cache. I suspect he will take the simplest action and archive.

Thanks for helping me make a decision. I appreciate your additional insight with regards to perception of the game.

Chris

P.S. I didn't see anything in the online cache logs about being in someone's yard for the cache I'm looking at. I didn't feel like I was in someone's yard when I was there. I think you may be looking at a different cache. I don't think there is the same stigma attached to DNF and NM as there might be to NA. The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

C

7.5k · May 30, 2015

1432957634[/url]' post='5509132']
1432944529[/url]' post='5509079']...I had to spend time discussing with people how the game works--from the guidelines on down to how caches are Reviewed, and how they can get in touch with Groundspeak to voice concerns or report unauthorized caches on their land, etc. It took a long time to get that all out in front of them, but most still think it's easier to avoid all of the bad examples by simply banning them altogether.

You see, this is more to my point about perception. Perception is a big part of this game, and even if there is sound science behind the idea that screws are less invasive to long term tree growth than rope or zip ties, it doesn't matter. If people see things attached to trees, they might think it ok to drill into a tree, insert long screws or lag bolts, cut branches to make hidden nanos, or who knows what else. And other geocachers might just use rope or zip ties, but won't think down the road like an arborist or forester might when it comes to adjusting the rope or attaching new zip ties the next spring; most caches are placed and the "zip ties" or "screws" are never adjusted in the 10-15 years the caches have been in place. ...

NeverSummer,

After assessing facts, methods and opinions on this thread, it's time for me to take action. This weekend, I'll contact the CO and ask him to either temporarily disable the cache until he's gotten permission from the HOA and made provision in the cache details online about how to download a printable permit allowing geocachers on that land or simply archive the cache. I suspect he will take the simplest action and archive.

Thanks for helping me make a decision. I appreciate your additional insight with regards to perception of the game.

Chris

P.S. I didn't see anything in the online cache logs about being in someone's yard for the cache I'm looking at. I didn't feel like I was in someone's yard when I was there. I think you may be looking at a different cache. I don't think there is the same stigma attached to DNF and NM as there might be to NA. The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

C

You could also point him to this discussion.

19k · May 30, 2015

...I had to spend time discussing with people how the game works--from the guidelines on down to how caches are Reviewed, and how they can get in touch with Groundspeak to voice concerns or report unauthorized caches on their land, etc. It took a long time to get that all out in front of them, but most still think it's easier to avoid all of the bad examples by simply banning them altogether.

You see, this is more to my point about perception. Perception is a big part of this game, and even if there is sound science behind the idea that screws are less invasive to long term tree growth than rope or zip ties, it doesn't matter. If people see things attached to trees, they might think it ok to drill into a tree, insert long screws or lag bolts, cut branches to make hidden nanos, or who knows what else. And other geocachers might just use rope or zip ties, but won't think down the road like an arborist or forester might when it comes to adjusting the rope or attaching new zip ties the next spring; most caches are placed and the "zip ties" or "screws" are never adjusted in the 10-15 years the caches have been in place. ...

NeverSummer,

After assessing facts, methods and opinions on this thread, it's time for me to take action. This weekend, I'll contact the CO and ask him to either temporarily disable the cache until he's gotten permission from the HOA and made provision in the cache details online about how to download a printable permit allowing geocachers on that land or simply archive the cache. I suspect he will take the simplest action and archive.

Thanks for helping me make a decision. I appreciate your additional insight with regards to perception of the game.

Chris

P.S. I didn't see anything in the online cache logs about being in someone's yard for the cache I'm looking at. I didn't feel like I was in someone's yard when I was there. I think you may be looking at a different cache. I don't think there is the same stigma attached to DNF and NM as there might be to NA. The paid app doesn't seem to allow posting NM or DNF. What's up with that? I have to report those from the web at home.

C

You could also point him to this discussion.

That may be the best idea yet. But that still would leave open the question of what to do if he chose to keep the cache open.

Local Cache in Private Park?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment